Imprisoned Haredi Child Abuse Cult Leader Refuses To Give Get To 'Wife' Who Is Mother Of Victims

According to M.'s statements to investigators, Chen forced her to divorce her legitimate husband, whom he then banished from the cult. Afterward, Chen and M. were married in a makeshift rabbinical court, though the union was never reported to the proper authorities, M. claims.

Imprisoned Cult Leader Chen Refusing To Grant Wife Divorce
Yair Ettinger • Ha'aretz

The leader of a Jerusalem cult facing charges of child abuse, Elior Chen, told a rabbinical court yesterday that he is refusing to grant a get, or Jewish divorce, to the mother of his alleged victims. The woman claims that the marriage was illegitimate.

Chen and the woman, M., were taken out of their jail cells and brought before a rabbinical court in Jerusalem for a hearing on the woman's divorce request. 

M., 40, initiated divorce proceedings in the rabbinical court. She is a key figure in the investigation, as she has agreed to testify as a state's witness against Chen.

Chen and several of his followers allegedly used knives, hammers and other instruments to abuse children as young as 3 and 4 years old in the ultra-Orthodox West Bank settlement of Betar Ilit in February and March 2008.

Chen allegedly hit the children in the head and face and burned their hands as part of a purification ritual. One child sustained permanent brain damage and is in a vegetative state, according to Israeli officials.

Chen fled to Brazil, but was extradited back to Israel last year.

M. and D., her legal ex-husband and the father of their children, were members of the cult led by Chen.

According to M.'s statements to investigators, Chen forced her to divorce D., whom he then banished from the cult. Afterward, Chen and M. were married in a makeshift rabbinical court, though the union was never reported to the proper authorities, M. claims.

By Jewish law, a marriage ceremony that is performed before two witnesses is valid and the woman would need to obtain a get in order to be allowed to marry again in the future.

Chen denied M.'s claims, insisting that the marriage was legitimate.

During the hearing, three witnesses testified on behalf of M. All three confirmed that they were in fact married, although none of the witnesses were present at the wedding ceremony. Another witness who took the stand was D., the ex-husband who has been questioned but not charged.

M., who has been held at the Neveh Tirtza women's detention center for the last two years, agreed to testify against Chen in exchange for leniency from the court.

The ultra-Orthodox community has been abuzz recently over a letter of support for Chen signed by a number of leading rabbis.

Sources close to the rabbis claim that they were unaware of the content of the letter, which praises Chen as a "fair, decent man" with a "pure heart." An aide to Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, the 100-year-old leader of the Lithuanian stream of the Ashkenazi ultra-Orthodox community, said the letter was a "forgery."

Last month, the Public Defender's Office notified the Jerusalem District Court that it objects to the appointment of one of its attorneys to represent Chen. This follows Justice Yoram Noam's decision to dismiss attorney Ariel Atari, who formerly represented Chen.

[Hat Tip: CS.]

Comments

[larry]

Wall Street Journal: Why is Obama against Israel?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3862914,00.html

the Obama administration "has endorsed 'healthy relations' between Iran and Syria, mildly rebuked Syrian President Bashar Assad for accusing the US of 'colonialism,' and publicly apologized to Muammar Gadhafi for treating him with less than appropriate deference after the Libyan called for 'a jihad' against Switzerland.

However, when it comes to Israel, "the administration has no trouble rising to a high pitch of public indignation," wrote the article entitled "Obama's Turn Against Israel."

Not even "repeated apologies from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prevented Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—at what White House sources ostentatiously said was the personal direction of President Obama—from calling the announcement 'an insult to the United States,'

[Shmarya]

Wrong topic Larry. Stay on point.

[harold]

, Elior Chen, told a rabbinical court yesterday that he is refusing to grant a get

Considering what this scum is alleged to have done is this a shock to anyone that it merits a news article? I mean he allegedly used knives, hammers and other instruments to abuse children as young as 3 and 4 years old so are we to be shocked that he is not granting a get? Instead of complaining, use some of the knives and hammers to get the "get" from him. I wont tell if you don't.

[critical minyan]

real issue here, is that this woman who I used to know, is still so screwed up that she allows some dude to beat her kid into a coma, but is still religious enough that she considers her fake marriage to this scumbag to be considered real enough to need a get.
her parents had a long fight over a Get also.

[A. Nuran]

It would be much easier if she were a widow.

[Alter Kocker]

The good news is once Chen is in general population in prison, he is the bottom rung as far as the inmate pecking order is concerned. In no time at all, he will either be dispatched, or will suffer torture greater than he ever imagined.

Hopefully, torture as great as what is awaiting him in the afterlife

[Mr. Apikorus]

Maybe the other inmates will "get" Chen.

[s(b.)]

It should go without saying that anyone whose husband is convicted of doing harm to a child should be given a get, no questions asked, if she wants one (I realize wives can do kids harm, too, but men still give the gets).

[soso]

See, this just happened because m's former husband did not refuse to give a get...

[Ma Rabbi]

In response to Larrys comment:
I would like to know what a big liberal like Shmarya thinks of the fact that Americas first black president has turned the screws on Israel again. Ordering Hillary to blast Israel for announcing that they intend to build in Jerusalem on Jewish land that belongs to them. Yasher Koach to the Wall Street Journal for setting them straight. As for Tom Friedman from the NY Times, he is a jewish "Uncle Tom."

[Bill]

It's a sad commentary about the state of Halacha that the wife cannot compel a divorce and that the only "solution" available to her depends upon the -murder- of her husband, which was alluded to
rather openly by several posters above me.

What a barbaric and inhumane jurisprudence this is.

[chabadnik attorney]

You know Bill, in every system of jurisprudence you factual circumstances that may not fit neatly into the law. Sometimes laws are changed or reinterpreted to address such circumstances to the detriment of the particular law as a whole. In the legal profession we called bad facts making bad law.

When you comment on Halacha it is usually with extreme vitriol and bias which can only be born out of some hatred or ignorance or both.

The marriage process in judaism is a sacrament which unfortunately doesn't always work out but nonetheless a sacrament. Now certain areas of Judaism have laws that apply to men and women differently, some benefiting men and some benefiting women. Someone who is generally looking to discredit Halacha in general will say its chauvinistic. A sincere person might contemplate that just as men and women are different physically, they may be different spiritually as well. After the physical creation reflects the spiritual. One would notice that a Mitzvah like Bris Milah is not required of a woman because she is physically different than a man and not out of prejudice against women.

Now, I will grant you that human beings have at times taken advantage of our heritage and used our laws in a prejudicial manner or to even harm others R"L. However a persons ability or propensity to evil does not make the Halacha evil.

[chabadnik attorney]

As for Chen, may his name be erased forever.

[Bill]

chabadnik,

it is not true, as you assert without any proof, that "every" system of jurisprudence leaves no room for the application of equitable principles where the law, when strictly applied, would lead to an unjust outcome.

If you are anything close to a real lawyer you would know that your premise is completely false in this regard.

[Isa]

Give Chen a choice:

In with the worst deviants ever,with guards that are 'hard of hearing'[Chen is told this]

OR gutless, spineless, white collar criminals

And the price to be safe is granting of a get

[seymour]

chabadnik attorney

one thing laws change when people see it is unjust or if it hatrms people

halacha does not, that is the problem

[Bill]

seymour,

Please be patient.

The rabbis have known about the agunah problem for only, oh, about two thousand years.

Change doesn't happen overnight.

[ii]

chen must be a descendant of berber savages. nobody with a jewish soul would do such things.

[A. Nuran]

ii, Jews are just as capable of cruelty and evil as anyone else. And despite whatever poison may have been hissed into your ears at an early age Gentiles are just as capable of kindness and good as any tzaddik.

[Jeff Eyges]

Someone who is generally looking to discredit Halacha in general will say its chauvinistic. A sincere person might contemplate that just as men and women are different physically, they may be different spiritually as well.

Oh, please. Take it outside, Chabad boy.

And since when do we have "sacraments" in Judaism? Marriage has always been a contractual matter.

[chabadnik attorney]

Bill, I did not make the ascertain that "every system of jurisprudence leaves no room for the application of equitable principles..." In fact in the American system (and others)there are laws that leave room for equitable considerations and there are laws that are quite draconian in nature leaving no room for equitable considerations.

In any event you side stepped my point. Seymour for example addressed the comment with logic and didn't side step my point. He also did not make a back handed comment about my abilities as a lawyer as you did.

As for JE, I see no gain in responding to a person who makes statements like "Oh, please. Take it outside, Chabad boy."

For your knowledge Bill, I will let you know, and you may know already that one part of the Jewish marriage is called "Kiddushin" literally translated as sanctification. Part of marriage is a spiritual bond that is created and severed spiritually.

Seymour, halacha is flexible at times and takes into account equitable considerations wherever possible. Concerning the issue of Agunah, the matter is taken quite seriously by reasonable minds and there have been many approaches to resolve the issue. For example when I got married I signed a prenuptial agreement which requires me to give and accept and "Get" without delay or condition in the event of a civil divorce and imposes severe penalties upon me should I fail to do so.

[Bill]

Chabadnic,

I am not sure what planet you have in mind, but on planet Earth there are thousands of agunot, and there is no unversally-accepted system-wide solution to -free- them.

With regard to your personal self-serving anecdote, I'm curious: what "severe penalties" would you subject yourself to if you refused to give a -get-, and what would happen to your wife's marital prospects in the Orthodox world if you refused to give a get, despite those penalties?

[chabadnik attorney]

Bill, I would request that you indulge me a little privacy about the details of my prenup. Suffice it to say there would be economic sanctions. Your right if I were a bastard, I could hurt my wife anyway. However, that is once again not my point.

Please site me a source as to to the number of Agunos. To me one is too many but your number seems likes rhetoric to me.

[chabadnik attorney]

Bill, what with you anyway? Do you wish to have a logical discussion or engage in rhetoric and innuendo. My "self-serving anecdote"! I relay personal information over the web and you accuse me of being self serving!?

[chabadnik attorney]

Argue facts or slither away.

[Bill]

chabadnick,

you were the one who volunteered your personal information without any solicitation from me, in an attempt to bolster your argument.

now that your argument failed, you are implying that I am disrespecting your privacy.

[chabadnik attorney]

The argument didn't fail as to the point I am trying to make. I didn't mean to imply that you are disrespecting my privacy. I merely requested your understanding if I do not go into further detail. I wish you well, I apologize on behalf of myself and other Charedim who have abused the laws of the Torah and have thus turned you off to them. If you sincerely wish to discuss issues and if you consider my thoughts valuable, I would appreciate further discourse. If you think me a fool or brainwashed then there is no point. I have to run. Zei GeBensched.

[Abracadabra]

Chabadnik Attny:

You wrote: "Now certain areas of Judaism have laws that apply to men and women differently, some benefiting men and some benefiting women. ...A sincere person might contemplate that just as men and women are different physically, they may be different spiritually as well. After the physical creation reflects the spiritual..."

There are NO areas of Judaism that have laws benefiting to women. Women have NO legal rights in Jewish law, and are on the level of children or slaves in Jewish law.

Men and woman are different physically, but men are given full rights according to halacha and women are given no rights. Different but with similar rights would be okay. But that is not the case in halacha.

[Abracadabra]

Chabadnik Attorney:

The following items are only some halachos (laws) which apply to women. There are more. There are also many parts of Gemara and commentaries with attitudes about women, which are not written as halachic rulings, but are just as demeaning to women.

• A woman is not allowed to divorce a man, only a man is allowed to divorce a woman. (Hence the agunah problem.)
• Women are invalid witnesses.
• Women are invalid to judge.
• A daughter may be betrothed by her father at his will.
• A woman may not betroth her daughter.
• It is the father's right to betroth his daughter but not his son.
• A father may sell his daughter as a maidservant (if she is under age 12. But the Rambam says that this is only when the laws of Yovel are practiced, and only by a man who is impoverished, and then afterwards if he earns enough money he should redeem her after she is sold “to prevent shame to the family”).
• A woman is always subject to her father until she is subject to her husband (Ketubot 48a)
• Only a man can initiate marriage, a woman can not. Kiddushin 5b: "Our rabbis teach: How by money? If he gave her money or something worth money and said 'By this you are sanctified to me, by this you are betrothed to me, by this you are my wife' - she is married, but if she gave to him and said 'By this I am sanctified to you, by this I am betrothed to you, by this I am your wife' - she is not married.
• A married woman has no property or money of her own.
• A daughter does not inherit from her parents (when there are sons).
• The husband inherits from his wife, but the wife does not inherit from her husband.
• A woman does not inherit from her sons or daughters.
• A Kohen may not marry a harlot, a profaned woman, or divorcee.
• A divorced daughter of a Kohen is not worthy of marriage to a Kohen since she is not worthy of him in purity and because she is tainted.
• A Kohen who is divorced, had inappropriate sexual relations, or even one who has raped women is allowed to eat the terumah, work in the Holy Temple and marry “appropriate and pure women”.
• A woman does not do ritual slaughter because it is not the custom (a d’rabanan)
• A woman is not supposed to perform a circumcision if there is a Jewish man around who knows how (a d’rabanan)
• A woman is not supposed to read from the Torah in public (a d’rabanan)
• The reason given for a woman not reading from the Torah in public is “due to the public's honor” (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, paragraph 282 section three)
• Women, slaves and minors are not counted towards an after-meal quorum (a d’rabanan) “If two men and a woman eat, the woman does not count.” (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, paragraph 199, section six)
• When lives are in danger the man must be saved before the woman (a d’rabanan) (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, paragraph 252, section eight)
• Regarding the above the Taz wrote in subsection six: "This means that a man and a woman are in danger of drowning in the river…and it seems to me the reason is that the man is obligated to fulfill more commandments."
• But this one takes the cake (and the matza!): The Tosfot wrote on Tractate Pesachim 4b: "In any case, were checking for chametz from the Torah, we would not believe women because it is great effort and requires precision, as is evident from the Jerusalem Talmud, which explains that women are lazy." The Shach (Yoreh Deah, paragraph 127, subsection 30) expanded upon this: "In that which involves bother women should not be trusted, for women are lazy, as the Tosfot wrote [there] and thus I was taught, that women are not faithful koshering the hindquarters, for there is no greater bother, and due to their laziness they will not be too fastidious." And the Mishnah Berura (paragraph 437, subsection 18) concurred: "From the outset, one should not command these [women, slaves, and minors] to search [for chametz], since the search is a bother and one should be wary lest they become lazy."

[chabadnik attorney]

Abracadabra, maybe you could explain that to my wife as she clearly wears the pants in my family.

[Abracadabra]

To Chen's Agunah Wife:

Go to the jail where Chen will be incarcerated and visit with the Israeli version of "Bubba" who is in jail for life. Explain to him your situation, and how you need Chen to grant you a get in order to move on with your life. Tell him about some of the things Chen did to your and others' helpless little children. Offer to send him a little money, and some of the goodies that he needs in jail, just as a token. "Bubba" will take care of the rest. Before you know it, you'll have your get, written in plain ink, or more likely - in blood.

[Bill]

"I didn't mean to imply that you are disrespecting my privacy. I merely requested your understanding if I do not go into further detail. I wish you well...." - chabadnick

You obviously don't have to go into any details about your personal life. Please realize, however, that it is unfair for you to use anecdotes for your personal life and be willing to explore them publically, but only insofar as you deem nessesary for the purposeses of supporting your own position.

That's not what I call arguing from "facts."

Second, as for you "apologizing" for "abusing" halacha and allegedly "turning" people off to it, that's a straw man argument.

This is not about you or me.

What I am saying is that the hareidi halachic jurisprudence itself is bigotted and inhumane, not in the way it is -applied-, but in the way it -is-.

Kindly refer to Abracadabra's well-cited additional proofs in this regard. This is just a drop in ocean of bigotry and incivility.

I wish you well too. (That was never the issue either!)

[R]

The whole agunah problem would be solved if any rabbi used his brain.
First off they need to write up a divorce paper at the same time they write up the kesubah. This will be kept together with the kesubah.
If a wife wants a get and her husband refuses she already had an agreement with him when they got married and can use the get document which will just need a couple of signatures.
I also see a problem with the amount beth dins charge for one seeking a get.
I know alot of people will say the marriage is invalid with this sort of prenup, but most marriages are probably invalid as the kesubah states that the man will look after the woman financially and quite often we see alot of kollel men getting married, while their wives have to support their families on a stipend.

[A. Nuran]

Chabadnik Attorney, you obviously learned at least one lesson in law school....

"When the facts are against you argue the law.

When the law is against you argue the facts.

When the facts and the law are against you call the other lawyer a schmuck."

[Jeff Eyges]

Abracadabra, maybe you could explain that to my wife as she clearly wears the pants in my family.

Meanwhile, it's still on your suffrage. If you decided to assert your HaShem-given rights, there isn't a damn thing she could do about it.

I love how you people are always coming out with statements like, "Someone who is generally looking to discredit Halacha in general will say its chauvinistic." Right - and someone who wants to protect his/her belief system at all costs will always deny, deny, deny.

[chabadnik attorney]

What I find interesting is that it takes 6 people here arguing against me to even have a fair fight.

[A. Nuran]

Nah, any one would be a fair fight. It takes six to scratch the hard-chrome finish of your self-righteousness.

[Jeff Eyges]

Nah, any one would be a fair fight. It takes six to scratch the hard-chrome finish of your self-righteousness.

(Snicker!)